27.03.2006 21:53, Peter T. Breuer wrote/a écrit:> In article <1143484821.2168.16.camel@leatherman> you wrote:>>> Would it be possible to get the old behaviour back?> >> Why exactly do you want this behavior? Maybe a better explanation would>> help stir this discussion.> > I don't know why he wants it (uptime does not increase during> hibernation) but I want it so that I can tell if I should time out or> not on an alarm for inactivity in userspace! The alarm should fire if> there has been no activity for a while (30s) while activity is possible.> If the machine is suspended, no activity is possible, so the alarm> should not fire.> > This is to counteract sysadamins playing with system time (e.g. syncing> with a net time server after bootup) which might cause artificial time> outs. Causing a timeout has nasty consequences when, for example, your> root fs is mounted over the net via daemons that do the network to-ing> and fro-ing from userspace. The only way they have of getting an> estimate of REAL time elapsed, without admin playing about messing> with them, is by surreptitiously snooping uptime, which more or less> represents kernel jiffies.It seems that what you are really looking for in your application is a monotonic clock. Linux has such thing since few releases. Using CLOCK_MONOTONIC (cf "man 3 clock_gettime") may look much less hacky than using the uptime ;-)

Now... concerning the suspend effect on this clock, I don't know. It's probably the same problem as uptime: no official semantic has ever been stated yet... Does anyone know?